I guess this board really is dead since no one has brought up the AZ shootings here yet.

I want to vent a little about it. I am sure this will dissolve into a gun control or other old argument that we have had on here a number of times.

First, this is a tragedy. I hope that the injured are able to heal - both body and mind. No one should have to witness an event like this. People in a civilized world should not die this way.

Second, the shooter is so messed up that it is sad no one had the thought to look into the kid prior to this. There were many failures on this case. From what I have seen and read, two of the main ones are his parents for not knowing how much their child needed medical attention. The school for not letting his parents know about his actions. I don't know how law enforcement could have or should have acted prior to this. From what I have read, they did what they could do.

Third, and this is where my rant is centered, I am tired of the "blame game". One group says it is Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh/Fox News's fault that the shooter was charged into emotion to act in such a violent way. Then reports come out that the shooter was not involved in politics other than a believer in some 9/11 conspiracies and carried a deep dislike for President Bush. Did the first group change what they were blaming when those reports came out? No. They just said things like this is a warning that P/L/FN is likely to cause another attack if things don't change. Those that want to change the laws in reaction to this event are, in my opinion, reaching out to punish everyone for the actions of one seriously disturbed individual. I read today that CNN is "restricting" the use of the words "crosshairs" and "target" in their programs. Do they really think that by not using those words it would prevent another event from happening? I fully believe that if you forbid certain words you grant them extra power and meaning.

Finally, do those, on all sides, think that they are so damned important that they have created something new? There has been aggressive political bickering since the founding of this country (and well beyond that in other countries). Hell, we had a sitting Vice President and former Secretary of the treasury shoot at each other, killing one (yes, the Burr-Hamilton duel). We all know that Lincoln was murdered by an assassin action on political beliefs. But so was James Garfield. President McKinley was assassinated by a person "motivated to action" by a speech from a known anarchist. There were many other attempts to assassinate other president for other political and deranged beliefs. To think that today's media has the power to dictate the actions of people is to give it more credit than it should have.

Our country was founded on a principle of freedom. Freedom of speech is the first one listed in the Bill of Rights. Laws that restrict the expression of ideas should not be the course taken in the wake of this tragic event. Politicians need to think that if they are wanting to limit political speech, how would they like it should after they are no longer in power that those in power deem the author's words damaging and threatening needing to be silenced? Any time there is thought to limit speech we are treading in dangerous waters.

Third, and this is where my rant is centered, I am tired of the "blame game". One group says it is Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh/Fox News's fault that the shooter was charged into emotion to act in such a violent way. Then reports come out that the shooter was not involved in politics other than a believer in some 9/11 conspiracies and carried a deep dislike for President Bush. Did the first group change what they were blaming when those reports came out? No. They just said things like this is a warning that P/L/FN is likely to cause another attack if things don't change. Those that want to change the laws in reaction to this event are, in my opinion, reaching out to punish everyone for the actions of one seriously disturbed individual. I read today that CNN is "restricting" the use of the words "crosshairs" and "target" in their programs. Do they really think that by not using those words it would prevent another event from happening? I fully believe that if you forbid certain words you grant them extra power and meaning.

What I do think - and have heard - is that people in positions of influence need to think about what they say and what they present to their followers. Free speech is great, but we all have to take some responsibility for the effects our words have when we're in positions of influence.

The constant gun-related and revolution-related rhetoric from some retards on the political stage of late is just silly. It's their right to say what they want, but it's also our right to say that they are frankly a bunch of irresponsible assholes for getting up and speaking that way when they know they have a shitload of influence over people...including people that might not be all there upstairs.

This was the second thing that happened after I landed in Phoenix and my first real life American shooting huzzah. In regards to the mall one, the major tie to anything I noticed was the people that got shot were ones that couldn't run away: elderly, children, fat. And a Social worker that seems to have been trying to talk him down.

The school shooting yesterday seems more like a complete fuck up on every level.

Socially this country is completely backwards to where I'm from. Younger generations in a lot of cases are growing up into nothingness and feel hopeless so they resort to doing crazy shit. No amount of knee jerk gun control will fix that

What I do think - and have heard - is that people in positions of influence need to think about what they say and what they present to their followers. Free speech is great, but we all have to take some responsibility for the effects our words have when we're in positions of influence.

Is just general pontificating and has nothing to do with the subject..?

Bov, on the Sunday Shows after the shooting they were criticizing Sarah Palin for her "target map" and her tough talk. They did not directly say "Sarah Palin is to blame for this shooting" but the implied blame is there against her and all of talk radio. Personally I think Palin is a whack-job and anyone that would take her seriously should have their head examined. But to indirectly blame her for actions that she had nothing to do with (and it was later found out that the shooter "didn't watch the news or pay attention to politics").

Much like when they tried to "blame" Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing, they are giving waaay too much power to something that they don't like or understand. They keep forgetting that when you call something out, you bring attention to it.

Bov, on the Sunday Shows after the shooting they were criticizing Sarah Palin for her "target map" and her tough talk.

I'll be honest, I don't like a lot of the type of talk that many of the right-wing folks have been using, either. Like I said, I don't blame them for any shootings, but I do think that they should at least exercise a little restraint when addressing people that they know are followers.

It just seems very irresponsible - as someone that people look to as a leader - to have your rhetoric constantly revolving around little comments about guns, shooting, reloading, "taking back your country" and such.

I'm not going to try to tell anyone how to speak in the United States, because it's their right to say what they want. It just also happens to be my right to say I don't like it very much.

I'm trying to figure out why you're posting about political speech *at all* when interviews of friends and associates said he never watched the news, never read it online, or showed much interest at all... and that he started stalking Giffords in 2007, was an atheist, held anti-religious views, hated George Bush, etc.

If your point is that political discourse has gone sour, but has nothing to do with the AZ shooting, then I agree, and thanks for the news flash princess.

Maybe you should go back to trolling 14 year olds and idiots on the WoW forums.

I'm trying to figure out why you're posting about political speech *at all* when interviews of friends and associates said he never watched the news, never read it online, or showed much interest at all... and that he started stalking Giffords in 2007, was an atheist, held anti-religious views, hated George Bush, etc.

If your point is that political discourse has gone sour, but has nothing to do with the AZ shooting, then I agree, and thanks for the news flash princess.

Maybe you should go back to trolling 14 year olds and idiots on the WoW forums.

The original post covered several topics NOT JUST the shooting. I'm sorry you feel the need to be a holier-than-thou douche in EVERY SINGLE THREAD you post in, but I'm completely honest right now when I say that you can seriously fuck off. Posting in any thread where you're in is like pulling fucking teeth, trying to dodge around your obnoxious attempts at being Mr. Wiseguy.

Over half of the original post was dealing with political rhetoric and how it was being blamed for the shooting. Bov appeared to say that while it wasn't necessarily to blame, it should still be toned down because words have consequences.

How is this unrelated? It's a far cry better than your posts on the topic (or mine now) in that it offers his viewpoint.

Over half of the original post was dealing with political rhetoric and how it was being blamed for the shooting. Bov appeared to say that while it wasn't necessarily to blame, it should still be toned down because words have consequences.

That's pretty much all, yep.

Speaking of words having consequences, I apologize for so much F-bomb dropping. I was just so annoyed there. ><

My issue with the whole mess is that the "influential people" seem to think we should all moderate our speech in order to not incite the crazies. Come on! Can we get any more lowest-common-denominator? Speech is speech & crazies are crazies. Trying to use one to justify limiting the other is outrageous.

My issue with the whole mess is that the "influential people" seem to think we should all moderate our speech in order to not incite the crazies. Come on! Can we get any more lowest-common-denominator? Speech is speech & crazies are crazies. Trying to use one to justify limiting the other is outrageous.

I totally agree. And I certainly would never want to see laws passed or something that limit the things you can say.

On the other hand, it's undeniable that words do have an effect on people. When you're in a position where you know people are listening to you, following you, and taking you seriously...maybe just tone it down a little. Maybe don't use quips and analogies about guns, shooting, revolutions, crosshairs, and such in your rhetoric.

Not because you HAVE to or because there's a law, but because it's just the decent thing to do. Like Krby said in the original post, no one in a civilized world should die that way. Why not? Because living in a civilized world isn't about guns, shooting people, or putting crosshairs on people or their districts. That's not supposed to be how we solve things, and it shouldn't be the way in which our leadership frames topics.

Ultimately though, we're the only ones with the power to hold our leadership to that higher standard. We're the ones who have to tell these people, "Look, this isn't the kind of talk we really want from a leader."

Am I being entirely unrealistic and too idealist? Yes. I know. It's just one of those, "It'd be nice if..." sorts of things.

Limiting expression has about as much chance of mollifying a crazy as it does of making people less prejudiced. I think people just don't want to hear certain words because it makes them uncomfortable. This week it's 'guns' and 'crosshairs' because they draw some narcissistic blame for enjoying political slap fighting.

As someone who is currently living in Tucson, in Gifford's district I probably followed the shootings a bit closer than others. My aunt and cousin were actually across the street at the eye doctor when the shooting happened. They were planning on going to the safeway afterwords, but they were sent home from the shopping mall they were in by a few heavily armed swat teams.

First obviously this is a tradgedy, but the way Americas medical privacy laws are there was little they could actually do. Iv'e taken classes at Pima Community College, even one at the same campus Laughner attended, and they are very clear that no information can be sent home if that is what you would prefer. Given how deranged he had clearly become long before the shooting I would have a hard time seeing anyone complain about a school official turning him in. Though unless he vouluntarily committed himself legally they can't do all that much, and even then he could probably leave whenever. I believe that someone at the school should have considered bringing the police or someone from the campus medical services to observe him during his outbursts. His parents seem to have just ignored him which could have gone a long way to prevent this, but again its not something people think about before something like this happens.

As for who to blame there really isn't a person that can be held responsible for the tragedy other than the shooter himself. I have believed that an event like this was an eventuality for the past few years. I know politics had been rough throughout the country, but having gone through the past few elections here in Tucson and Arizona in general there has been a large increase in the amount of hate speech as it related to politics. I don't think it would be inappropriate to consider the rhetoric as an overarching storyline as it relates to the shooting, but it is hardly a cause. I think the calls to censor the speech of politicians are misguided, but words relating to or insinuating any type of violence have no place in what is supposed to be intelligent conversation about the problems facing this country.

In the aftermath of the shooting Sheriff Dupnik made some good points (even if he didn't prepare them that well). The amount of anger towards politicians around the country has grown quite a bit and the threats that come in on members of congress here in Arizona (almost exclusively directed at democratic candidates btw) have set an alarming trend. Although again in this instance it really did not matter who was in office, he was clearly intent on killing whoever was running the district he lived in.

If this shooting leads to more civilized politics then thats great, but I have trouble seeing that continue for very long. Iv'e gone by both the hospital Giffords is in and her office a few times since the shooting and it is clear from the signs and the vigils that at least here in Tucson people want an end to the rhetoric.

I don't see the correlation, and I think implying that there is one is a bad idea. I don't think politicians should bear much, if any, responsibility for any actions taken by another individual for the words they use. Maybe in the court of public opinion. But taking concerted action to limit the speech of anyone is a bad idea.

Frankly, our political rhetoric is still a *lot* more tame than literally most countries on the planet.

Lastly, if you want to point fingers, I think some of the things Obama has said are at least as stupid as Palin's "target" map bullshit (also stupid). Like labeling republicans as enemies, for example.

I read today that CNN is "restricting" the use of the words "crosshairs" and "target" in their programs. Do they really think that by not using those words it would prevent another event from happening? I fully believe that if you forbid certain words you grant them extra power and meaning.

Given the level of intellect of the shooter and his deranged thought processes, yea, I definitely think not using certain words could prevent a similar event from happening with a similar individual. Certain trains of thought can easily begin with one word, as one thought leads to the next.

Forbidding words only grants them as much power as you want them to be granted via forbidding them. If I do not lend any additional meaning to a word for it having been forbidden, and subsequently spoken, there is zero extra power given to that word. If people are stupid and grant it power on that arbitrary and idiotic basis, then it's granted power by the most ridiculous argument conceivable, but still only in the eyes of stupid people.